ON-DOT COURIER & CARGO LTD Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, H O TOTU, SHIMLA HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Opposite Party in CC No.14 of 2006, questioning the correctness of the order, dated 23.09.2010, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal no.190 of 2009. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while affirming the finding recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, Himachal Pradesh (for short "the District Forum") in its order dated 20.01.2009, in the said Complaint to the effect that the Petitioner was deficient in performance of its service, as a common carrier, has allowed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant, and has enhanced the compensation awarded by the District Forum from Rs.100/- to Rs.1,25,400/-. The State Commission has also awarded interest to the Complainant, @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e. 30.12.2005 till its payment/deposit, whichever is earlier, in addition to the litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the District Forum.

(2.) In short, the case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that its Assistant Engineer had booked with the Petitioner four numbers of Relays for being delivered to a party in Kerala, vide Airway Bill no.47397300/- dated 17.09.2004. However, the said consignment was not delivered at the destination of the addressee. Hence, alleging deficiency in service, in the Complaint filed against the Petitioner, the Complainant inter alia, prayed for indemnification of the cost of relays (Rs.1,25,400/-) along with damages etc. As noted above, the District Forum allowed the Complaint, holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner and accordingly issued the aforestated directions to it.

(3.) Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded, the Complainant preferred Appeal before the State Commission for enhancement of compensation. However, the Petitioner did not challenge the said order, with the result that the finding of deficiency in performing service towards the Complainant attained finality. As noted above, the compensation having been enhanced by the State Commission, the Petitioner/Carrier is before us.